What is more important...?

[Sheepdog]

Too often the Body suffers because of two diseases. On one hand, we see a tendancy to live and let live, to set aside all theology and intelligent discussion to lock arms and get all lovey dovey about unity and tolarance. On the other hand, we also see a tendancy to argue, frustrate, and break apart in the harshness of theological disputes.

Tell me, is love so important that we dare build our temple on sand, without a foundation? Is correct theology so important that we schism, divided we fall?

I think it is clear that the two should not be mutually exclusive, and a proper balance is what the Chruch needs.

Nevertheless, i'd like to see what people think is more important, love and unity, or sound doctrine and fair rebukes.

[bar Jonah]

I believe we should be very wary of terms like "balance." That suggests we should compromise one for the other... or compromise both.

I don't believe the two ideals are mutually exclusive at all. We can contend with each other and wrestle over scriptures, even to a heated extent, without creating schism. We can love and unify without compromising absolute morality.

I say both ideals (insofar as the ideal aspect of each side) are 100% right.

[India]

I agree with RI. I'd add that there are doctrines that are more important than others. E.g. it's not worth offending someone in order to demonstrate that your view of who the Nephilim were is correct; but it is worth offending someone (and even considering a church split) if a core doctrine, like the divinity of Jesus, is at stake. It's possible for one's doctrine to be so far in error that you're not even worshiping the same God as they are anymore; but the most common inter-church doctrinal disputes are not this extreme.

My husband's friend says he knows of a church that literally split over the issue of whether the hymnals should be blue or red.

[mossrose]

It seems to me that the love and fellowship part can only follow properly if the doctrine is sound. The truth still matters, and taking a stand for truth is more important than making sure the church is not split.

Arguing over the colour of the hymnals does not constitute making sure than sound doctrine is being preached. Changing the hymns to lose any aspect of the gender of God is point that should be fought over. (The United Church in Canada, similar to the Congregational church in the States, has changed all their hymns to remove specific gender of God).

If the doctrine is not sound, the Biblical model of fellowship can't possibly be put into practice.

[luv1another]

Hi Sheepdog,
I would have to say that loving one another is the most important thing... even Christ tells us that. I think if we love God first and seek after him by reading the bible and praying and loving others then there would be no need for arguing. Shouldnt our whole term on earth be to be Christlike? ... what did Christ do? he studied and prayed and then went out teaching about God... he didnt argue with people at all... I dont find any place that says Jesus argued... he stated the truth and when he did others could not fault it. when they tried he spoke the truth again and people were quiet because they knew he spoke the truth... they tried to catch him out but he spoke the truth and they could not catch him out. where did Jesus get most of his teaching? from God and what God had spoken to the prophets and others before him in what we know as the old testament.
I believe if you are reading your bible and praying and seeking God, you could be in a church with doctrine that is not sound but know and pray for the eyes of the people to be open to the truth..thats part of loving others praying for them.... I believe arguing with others only causes division and so trying to prove what God has shown you is truth is prideful in some ways... sure you can tell people but it is then their choice whether to believe what you say or not... you do not need to argue with someone.... God has sown the seed it is now in his hands arguing with them just tends to make them more wanting to prove what they believe is right. Discussion is ok but if the discussion turns to trying to prove your point then its not good.... people are all at diffrent levels in their faith and maybe at this time they may not see the truth of what you tell them but the seed is there and later as they grow more they may understand that seed. so I would say loving God and seeking to become Christlike is first and then loving one another.
anyway thats what I believe.
God bless you

[Sheepdog]

RightIdea, when i speak of ballance, i mean a position on both issues that is the most in line with Scripture. the problem is, people are taking up one ideal to the extreme such that they are acting very unbiblical. and indeed, it can be argued that doctrinal purity to the extent we see it (e.g. India's example of splitting over the color of the hymnals) is in contradiction to love Jesus wants (yes, both Greek words for love). likewise, while this case is more rare, we also have the "i don't need theology, i have Jesus" types. of course that is a caracature, but not necessarily far from the truth. both of these extremes are indeed mutually exclusive. the ideals aren't, i agree, but no thanks to human nature, ideals are too often taken to the extreme.

i share your caution regarding compromise. nevertheless, in some cases it may be necessary, because specific groups are definitely out of God's will in terms of what He wants for the Church. if a compromise occurs that brings them closer to God, so be it.

Mossrose, Luv,

lemme think on your responses. i have some comments, but at this point they are too ad hoc.

[bar Jonah]

That's cool, Sheepdog. That's why I said we have to be careful when we talk about "balance." That's a good working definition. Problem is, many (if not most) people use that word and mean compromise, and that's what I wanted to be careful about. :ri:

[Theolog]

I would say at this stage of the game a little tolerance in theological diversity is necessary.

Obviously there can only be one truth but I believe that people need much time and study to find it.

Our churches seem to follow a pattern of finding a young pastor ( a theological infant) and making him the chief elder that proceeds to establish and build on his immature theological presuppositions and rarely giving serious thought or study to whether his basic presuppositions are correct or not.

After these presumptuous young men are made pastors there is little time or desire to overhaul their theology as just making a decent sermon and a weekly Bible study will consume most of their time. Then we have the sheep that demand some personal attention occasionally.

And then we have the pragmatic approach to unity that needs to ditch any form of doctrinal correctness and demands the sheep just follow these well meaning but theological and social misfits.

Our relationship with God is just that “OUR relationship”. How do pastors love us if they do not respect our relationship with God

Perhaps just eating a pizza is the answer.

[India]

Ephesians 4 is where it has the verse about speaking the truth in love. You can't speak the truth if you don't have the truth, but if you don't speak in love you're likely to go unheard, no matter how correct you are.

It seems to me that truth/doctrine and love are indeed intertwined. Our love for each other stems from our love for God and his love for us. But in order to love God, we need to know who he is and how to love him - that is, we need to know his attributes and also what is right, since we love God by obeying him and doing what's right. If we don't have correct knowledge, we don't know how to love. If we don't love, we can't pass on whatever knowledge we have, and can't receive more knowledge from God (to the extent that we don't love others, we don't love God, and thus won't learn from him).

[David O]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214516#post214516)
Theolog:

I would say at this stage of the game a little tolerance in theological diversity is necessary.

Obviously there can only be one truth but I believe that people need much time and study to find it.

Our churches seem to follow a pattern of finding a young pastor ( a theological infant) and making him the chief elder that proceeds to establish and build on his immature theological presuppositions and rarely giving serious thought or study to whether his basic presuppositions are correct or not.

After these presumptuous young men are made pastors there is little time or desire to overhaul their theology as just making a decent sermon and a weekly Bible study will consume most of their time. Then we have the sheep that demand some personal attention occasionally.

And then we have the pragmatic approach to unity that needs to ditch any form of doctrinal correctness and demands the sheep just follow these well meaning but theological and social misfits.

Our relationship with God is just that “OUR relationship”. How do pastors love us if they do not respect our relationship with God

Perhaps just eating a pizza is the answer.

This is nice.

I just had an interesting thing happen. I had contacted a church to see if I would be welcome there since I believe that the verses commanding women to be silent are literal. I promised not to ask that of their women but wanted to be allowed to require that of my daughters and any woman who came to church with me. Their pastor told me straight up that he would tell them to speak anyway. Is that his right? It is his church, but it is my family. I won't have anything to do with that church. He doesn't appear to have been respectful of my authority, and easily was willing to contradict my commandments to my own children, that were made based on my relationship with God.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 09:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214550#post214550)
India:
Ephesians 4 is where it has the verse about speaking the truth in love. You can't speak the truth if you don't have the truth, but if you don't speak in love you're likely to go unheard, no matter how correct you are.

It seems to me that truth/doctrine and love are indeed intertwined. Our love for each other stems from our love for God and his love for us. But in order to love God, we need to know who he is and how to love him - that is, we need to know his attributes and also what is right, since we love God by obeying him and doing what's right. If we don't have correct knowledge, we don't know how to love. If we don't love, we can't pass on whatever knowledge we have, and can't receive more knowledge from God (to the extent that we don't love others, we don't love God, and thus won't learn from him).
Absolutely!

Truth without love is cold, harsh and unforgiving. Love without truth is weak, ephemeral and frankly pointless.

Truth and Love must go hand in hand. Indeed, the foundation of XmansMommy's and my courtship is this principle -- Truth and Love. Hand in hand, neither without the other.

[themuzicman]

Doctrine without love is legalism.

Love without doctrine is moral relativism.

Michael

[mossrose]

“ Today @ 09:38 AM post located here
India:
Ephesians 4 is where it has the verse about speaking the truth in love. You can't speak the truth if you don't have the truth, but if you don't speak in love you're likely to go unheard, no matter how correct you are.

It seems to me that truth/doctrine and love are indeed intertwined. Our love for each other stems from our love for God and his love for us. But in order to love God, we need to know who he is and how to love him - that is, we need to know his attributes and also what is right, since we love God by obeying him and doing what's right. If we don't have correct knowledge, we don't know how to love. If we don't love, we can't pass on whatever knowledge we have, and can't receive more knowledge from God (to the extent that we don't love others, we don't love God, and thus won't learn from him). ”


Absolutely!

Truth without love is cold, harsh and unforgiving. Love without truth is weak, ephemeral and frankly pointless.

You have both said it so much better than I did, but that was the point that I was trying to make. After reading my post again, I see that I failed to say it properly. Thanks...... :metro:

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214347#post214347)
RightIdea:

That's cool, Sheepdog. That's why I said we have to be careful when we talk about "balance." That's a good working definition. Problem is, many (if not most) people use that word and mean compromise, and that's what I wanted to be careful about. :ri:

comprende :thumb:

[Blake Reas]

Sheepdog,

I would be willing to sit down with some Pizza were you and I could correct each others errors in theology anytime. :cheers::yipee:

IN Christ,
Blake

[nomad]

balance does mean compromise. but it means compromising the right things. compromise is not automatically sin; if i want to go to a thai restaurant, and another wants italian, then compromise might mean going to the mall where we can both get what we want. compromise often has negative connotations where i don't think it necessarily should all the time.

one possible example might be paul, and his deference to weaker siblings. in 1 cor 10, he strenuously defends his right to eat meat, and declares it not sin. however, earlier in 1 cor 8, he says he won't eat meat, in order not to cause his brothers to stumble. what happened? he is trying to balance his own rights against his responsibilities to his fellow man. he struck a balance, compromising his rights to keep from causing another to stumble, giving something up to gain something better. but he did not sin by not 'exercising his faith', as some i have heard seem to claim. he simply made a choice, it was a compromise because it wasn't what he would have liked the most (i'm guessing from the passage he liked meat :), but the one with the most benefits for all, not just him.

compromise, done properly, does not mean sinning, but it may often mean giving up a closely-held judgment, or giving up something that you want.

[David O]

I have a hard time buying that.

[nomad]

what part? maybe i am wrong. but i won't know unless you can express your objection. i just feel like 'compromise' is a loaded word (like many christianese-type words) that gets hurled around like an asian elephant, and these uses often have several different real meanings.

for instance, there exist many christians today who would claim that jesus was 'compromising' by eating and drinking with sinners, prostitutes, corrupt tax collectors, who knows who else. i know this because they claim the same things about christians who aren't jesus today... you went to a bar with your non-christian work buddies? oooh, you're a compromising christian. even though they might not have even drank any alcohol (for the teetotallers). i think it's very obvious that jesus was not compromising when he did such things, no? at least, not in the loaded sense that christians use it... however, he WAS trading off having to interact with sinners, for a chance to save such sinners...

just because compromise is such a loaded word doesn't mean we can't use it meaningfully, it just means i am careful to get clarification on what people mean by it.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222691#post222691)
David O:

I have a hard time buying that.

Which post were you referring to? Nomad's or mine?

In Christ,
Blake

[David O]

The balance/compromise stuff. I believe in careful accomodation of others weaknesses, but not in what he is describing. I'm mostly OK with what he is attempting to accomplish, but I think that the terms set things up to go bad later.

[nomad]

can you elaborate? seriously, if you have an objection, i'd like to consider it, but don't have anything to work with right now. maybe there are some undesirable side effects i'm not considering.

[Sheepdog]

Blake, that would be cool. you live anywhere near MI, by any chance?